Author
Topic: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L (Read 58920 times)

All the photos except the bokeh photo are taken with the 50L. A little bias?

The bias is that it's a review on the Canon 50mm f/1.2 L lens. And while I felt it important to show some level of comparison (the differences between lenses is often a question I ask myself), it wasn't a comparative review itself. Obviously, owning the 50 1.4, I have a FAR greater catalogue of images taken with it.

My only comment on the review itself is your bokeh comparison - why at f/7.1? I guess it's to show they are similar, but at f/2-4, they are very different...

True true, I wanted to show the difference the aperture blades make, nothing more, I mention it's not a comment in the overall quality of the background, but, starting at around 7.1 you can see the shapes they make, and that could be an issue for some.

Sorry for the pedantic comment, but the bokeh of the 1.8 is pentagonal (five-sided), not hexagonal (six-sided).

No, thanks! I can't make the edit myself though, so I'll just sound more like a tool.

One of my long time curiosities with the lens was will I upgrade from my 1.4? After 2 weeks with the 1.2 the answer is no - but I did *like* using it more than I do my 1.4, and maybe that counts for something?

In the listing of Canon 50mm primes, the review fails to mention the f/2.5 compact macro. Sure it's a macro and slower than the others, but it's still a 50mm prime, and IMHO sharper and better built than the f/1.8.

I hope that Canon releases a new f/1.4 with true ring USM sometime soon.

Well there seem to be mixed opinions about this lens. I got one some time ago and sold it again... it was a nice lens for some special pics, but I didn't thought the price would benefit the results (f 1.2 is 36,11% more light than f1.4, only). The 85 f1.2 is magic all over it's range, but the 50mm 1.2 is rather poor. It's better than the 50mm 1.0, really... but no match to the Canonball or newer lenses from canon without "L"-designation (but sadly nearly the same pricetag).

There are drawbacks on the 85mm 1.2, f.e. you need power on the mount to manually focus the lens, no wheater sealing for the "L"-Lens, slow AF and the extending front isn't nice, eighter.

On the other Hand you pay nearly the same price for Carl Zeiss 50mm Lenses with *manual* focus but to say "you are jealous" if you can't afford one, is childish. I use a lens to make pictures and I can assure you there are a lot of lenses out there for small budget but with great specs. There is no need to pay hundreds of dollars for the red rings just because of fluorit glasses or metal case if you can't see the results. I guess quite a few use the 50mm 1.2 on cropped sensors, only. So, the weak points are missing in the picture and hey, a 50mm lense is one of the simplest lens-calculations out there. I think Canon will bring a new 50mm 1.4 formula which will excell the old 50mm 1.2, easily. I think the disapearing of the old 50mm 1.4 is even anounced, yet.

It's like everything, f.e. like a sportscar: you can pay 20000$ in extra for the 10 Horsepower S-Edition... but you could spend the money on a bike and get the same results but with a brighter smile on your face

In the listing of Canon 50mm primes, the review fails to mention the f/2.5 compact macro. Sure it's a macro and slower than the others, but it's still a 50mm prime, and IMHO sharper and better built than the f/1.8.

I hope that Canon releases a new f/1.4 with true ring USM sometime soon.

True, I guess I was too sweeping with my statements in listing the lineup. I considered the lens, but omitted it knowing that it's not really in the same lens category. I try to keep the reviews from being too complicated (listing a MF Macro lens etc etc) but, not trying to be misleading.

I'd love for you to post more examples of your experience here if you'd like!

There are drawbacks on the 85mm 1.2, f.e. you need power on the mount to manually focus the lens, no wheater sealing for the "L"-Lens, slow AF and the extending front isn't nice, eighter.

On the other Hand you pay nearly the same price for Carl Zeiss 50mm Lenses with *manual* focus but to say "you are jealous" if you can't afford one, is childish. I use a lens to make pictures and I can assure you there are a lot of lenses out there for small budget but with great specs. There is no need to pay hundreds of dollars for the red rings just because of fluorit glasses or metal case if you can't see the results. I guess quite a few use the 50mm 1.2 on cropped sensors, only. So, the weak points are missing in the picture and hey, a 50mm lense is one of the simplest lens-calculations out there. I think Canon will bring a new 50mm 1.4 formuala which easily will excell the old 50mm 1.2, easily.

I agree with everything you said. I have an 85 1.2 review still in draft with similar sentiments.

@JVLPhotoIf you like the 85mm 1.2 (and I love mine), you probably find this page interesting: http://www.gletscherbruch.de/foto/85er/objektiv.html. It's german, but you can translate it. It's some rare pictures of the Canon 85mm L 1.2 II from inside The effort taken to move the heavy glaslenses is immense... on the 6th picture from the top you see some reflexes in the glass.... those reflexes are 72 (!) balls to hold one of the lenses because of it's own weight.

Maybe the 50mm 1.2 has some complex parts, too, and the price is reasonable... but someone has really to pay 4 times the price for the last 1/3 stop he's never gonna use. The famous 50mm f1.0 is known to be much more worse and nearly unusable full open, but to dazzle around people pay $6000 and more on ebay. And I must admit, just to have one... luckily I have to pay my gear by myself. This is out of scope

Edit: One good point on bright Canon-lenses is the posibility to close the aperture by 1/3 EV steps, mostly. Often the open aperture form 3rd PartyLenses (maybe a lense with max aperture@f1.4) is followed by f2, then some half steps and from f4 on full steps etc...

"you are jealous" if you can't afford one, is childish. I use a lens to make pictures and I can assure you there are a lot of lenses out there for small budget but with great specs. There is no need to pay hundreds of dollars for the red rings just because of fluorit glasses or metal case if you can't see the results.

It's like everything, f.e. like a sportscar: you can pay 20000$ in extra for the 10 Horsepower S-Edition...

+1

I said the same thing about the comment that those who have issues with this lens do so because they "can't afford it".

Though my 50L made some great shots, it was not something that hit the mark reliably...when I needed certainty, I was falling back on the simple f1.4... I eventually bit the bullet and sold it. I will not say it has no merit at all...it does. But, it is like dating a beautiful, but rather tempremental girl who has PMS at random times. If it works for you, awesome.

If you are desperate for this look on a budget, take a flier on a SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 (or, if you are shooting full frame, try the SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.. Manual everything, of course, but the adapters are available for $10 and these lenses produce a lot of that unique character on a budget.

In interest of full disclosure, however, while I have owned both the EF 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4, I have not owned the 50L. I suspect that it superior to the Takumars in every way (other than size and build quality - those Takumars are close to bulletproof and beautifully manufactured). Difference being that you can get one of the Takumars + an adapter for typically less than $100 USD.

"you are jealous" if you can't afford one, is childish. I use a lens to make pictures and I can assure you there are a lot of lenses out there for small budget but with great specs. There is no need to pay hundreds of dollars for the red rings just because of fluorit glasses or metal case if you can't see the results.

It's like everything, f.e. like a sportscar: you can pay 20000$ in extra for the 10 Horsepower S-Edition...

+1

I said the same thing about the comment that those who have issues with this lens do so because they "can't afford it".

Though my 50L made some great shots, it was not something that hit the mark reliably...when I needed certainty, I was falling back on the simple f1.4... I eventually bit the bullet and sold it. I will not say it has no merit at all...it does. But, it is like dating a beautiful, but rather tempremental girl who has PMS at random times. If it works for you, awesome.

I disagree I can afford the 50 f1.2 and the 85 f1.2 however i chose the sigma 85 f1.4 because on 5D bodies there is a significant AF speed difference and its a stunning lensI chose the the canon 50f1.4 and also have the sigma 50f1.4 the canon is very compact and better to carry around when travelling, the sigma is bigger but IMO better than the 50 f1.2however with the image quality coming out of canons latest generation lenses i am very keen to see what they do when they finally update the 50 f1.2L